Vista price hikes upsets OEM builders!

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Najib said:

Najib said:

Najib said:

In the new year when OSX 10.5 comes out, it will be light years
ahead of Vista.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

tigger said:

People that say that OS X will be "light years ahead" of Vista must
definitely know more about what will be new in 10.5 than me, so
please tell me what is in 10.5 to get really excited about.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Najib said:

It's not that OSX "will be" light years ahead of Vista. It
"already" IS light years ahead of Vista.
Clearly you have your info wrong. everything on OSX 10.5 are things
that even Vista doesn't have. The current OSX that has been
available for over a year is what Vista has copied, and hasn't even
been released yet!

Click to expand...

1. The only person who said that "OSX 'will be' better is you. Tigger was quoting you.

2. Tigger claimed no info on what is in 10.5. He asked you to defend your claims with some fact. Stating that he clearly has his info wrong about 10.5 is nonsensical. He stated that he has no info.
Care to provide any real info here, or are you equally without it?

• TK

It´s expensive, slow (M$ won´t allow benchmarks to be published against XP etc) so there isn´t any reason to get Vista. Your computer will be faster with XP and XP is good enough OS. Sure there are better OS like OSX, Linux and BSD and you can use them along with XP, but there is no need or real advantage of getting Vista, at least soon.

Some gamers will adopt Vista when games will be direct X 10 (or whatever the name is) and M$ won´t support the new graphics cards in XP! The Geforce 7900 and ATI X1950 are pretty good and will be for some years for all except the hardcore gamers.

Sam

Najib said:

Why deal with 10 different overpriced versions of Windows XP? Get a
Mac...better OS, and one well built version for everyone. Not to
mention that it costs less, and is better overall.

Click to expand...

I'd like to hear how you figure that OSX is cheaper. Sure, it comes installed on a Mac, but you pay a huge premium for Apple's approved hardware platform. Now that Mac's are Intel-based, the comparison is much easier. For about half the price of a Mac Pro workstation, you can get a non-Mac desktop system with identical parts. You save money even if you factor in the cost of buying a full-retail copy of Vista (which hardly anyone does because systems usually come pre-installed with an OEM copy for much less).

Najib said:

In the new year when OSX 10.5 comes out, it will be light years
ahead of Vista. Vista's new featuras from XP are basically copied
items from OSX. Like the Glass Aero interface, among MANY other
things...

Click to expand...

Which features are copied, exactly? The interface is not. The OSX interface is still fully rendered in 2D, while the Aero desktop uses the video card's 3d processing power to accelerate the interface and provide new ways to organize the desktop.

--
Jordan

Is that performance test so far indicate that there is no advance over XP..aka in terms of running apps faster. In a few it is a tad faster, for some, slower...in particular games take a significant hit. However I cannot test the retail version........yet...so it may have improved.

IN terms of RAM...I wouldnt even bother attempting a 512Mb install...1GB is the real min...for 2Gb users performance will be good, but you will have less ram available to you...because.

An install of XP uses roughtly at start up...between 230-300Mb of RAM (depending on how it is configured..or what is starting)...230 being good.

An install of Vista will gobble up over 600Mb of RAM on average..(again tweaking can help)

Bottom line is 1Gb users will need more RAM to maintain a reasonable no. for apps...so if you are going for it..get another 1Gb...

And goodbye superbudget pc's now..xp works not bad on 512Mb...good on 1Gb.....gamers will want a min of 2Gb for vista...
--

Najib said:

Najib said:

Najib said:

Najib said:

Najib said:

Care to elaborate why OS X will be "light years ahead" of Vista?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Considering Apple is on their fifth version of trying to get it right, it should be better than Vista.

Gee, lets see, if I want to run OSX, I have to buy a brand new computer because Apple sez I can't run OSX on my dual core AMD X2 (legally). Funny those those MS people....they don't care if I run Vista on my AMD X2.

I process 10,000 x 3,000 Panoramas with Win2k on the above mentioned platform, and it screams. Moving to Vista will require a lot of justification on MS's part for me to switch, but my last option will be moving to an OS where I'm forced to use only the hardware that is available in a store in the mall between Sunglass Hut and Ms. Fields cookies.

JSug said:

JSug said:

JSug said:

JSug said:

JSug said:

JSug said:

For about half the price of a Mac Pro workstation, you can get a non-Mac desktop system with identical parts

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Uh, for the price Mac Pro you can build a much faster Core 2 Duo system, not be forced to run Rosetta, and have enough cash left over to buy CS2, and a premium RAW converter.

I wasn't aware the OS was more important than the applications that run inside it anyhow, but Vista hypers are just as guilty as Apple users in that respect.

Fancy GUI's and other junk might impress a housewife or a teenager, but unless the OS does something that results in more productive applications I'm note interested. I'll wait till I see CS3 benchmarks on 64-bit operating systems beating up older versions of Photoshop not crippled by Bridge before buying Vista in any case.

At least the Mrs. Field's cookies will make the process more appealing
--
(See profile for equipment)

FU, ms! I'm getting a couple 64 bit copies of XP pro and not touching Vista for a least 2 years, prolly 5. MS can take their DRM tools and rot.

Don't use Vista and teach MS some manners! Money is the only thing MS cares about, and will react to. Vista will take at least 2 years to worm out the bugs anyway. Ha!

He talks about prices $350 us. dollars.

I will buy a XP pro licence in the next weeks.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.milenio.com%2Fmexico%2Fmilenio%2Fnota.asp%3Fid%3D454327%26sec%3D5&langpair=es%7Cen&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

Barry Fitzgerald said:

An install of XP uses roughtly at start up...between 230-300Mb of
RAM (depending on how it is configured..or what is starting)...230
being good.

An install of Vista will gobble up over 600Mb of RAM on
average..(again tweaking can help)

Click to expand...

I did some testing, too. Yes, Vista will use more RAM on startup if it can get it.
But what I tried was this:

I started PS CS2, IDImager, MovieMaker and opened in all of them quite a lot of files and let them do some processing. The RAM usage for all three programs went up, leaving only 280MB left over for Vista.
And with this amount of RAM, it still worked fine.

What Vista does is use the RAM if it can have it, but it will happily share it with other programs if they need it.

So what is so bad in Vista using the RAM instead of XP just let the RAM go wasted?

JSug said:

Which features are copied, exactly? The interface is not. The OSX
interface is still fully rendered in 2D, while the Aero desktop
uses the video card's 3d processing power to accelerate the
interface and provide new ways to organize the desktop.

Click to expand...

In fact, OS X uses the video card since 10.2 to accelerate the user interface.

tigger said:

I did some testing, too. Yes, Vista will use more RAM on startup if
it can get it.
But what I tried was this:
I started PS CS2, IDImager, MovieMaker and opened in all of them
quite a lot of files and let them do some processing. The RAM usage
for all three programs went up, leaving only 280MB left over for
Vista.
And with this amount of RAM, it still worked fine.

What Vista does is use the RAM if it can have it, but it will
happily share it with other programs if they need it.

So what is so bad in Vista using the RAM instead of XP just let
the RAM go wasted?

Click to expand...

The bad point is that why have so many services start up, when you dont use most of them. Sure it will share ram, as per any other OS out there. But there comes a point when you push the boat out a long way, and there is no alternative but to start using the pagefile, thus slowing things down.

Eye candy and extra features are fine, and in some ways vista is nice..but the reality remains that it doesnt do anything better than XP really...it doesnt run programs faster...and it needs more resources. It has take 5 years for this?

An OS is just really a shell to run your other programs..it doesnt need gimmicks to appeal...less is more..

Ever used foxit reader? then try adobe acrobat...you will see what I mean...one is lean mean and fast..the other is full of bloat that you dont need..and slower.
--

Barry Fitzgerald said:

Ever used foxit reader? then try adobe acrobat...you will see what
I mean...one is lean mean and fast..the other is full of bloat that
you dont need..and slower.

Click to expand...

And that is in my experience not true for Vista. It does everything i do at the same speed as XP.

This may vary for others, as others may use their OS in a slightly different way and use other applications.

There are many changes under the hood that have changed since XP, not only the interface is prettier. The whole security stuff, new networking stack, new explorer shell, priorization of the whole IO stuff, not only CPU, ...

I don't say that these are things that justify to upgrade from XP to Vista. If XP is fine for you, than you don't need to upgrade.
People tend to think of Vista as a down your throat upgrade. Nobody has to.

If you are talking about lean mean and fast, you should be using Win 2000 instead of XP, anyway. Version number of 2000 is 5.0, XP is 5.1
There are almost zero changes in the kernel from 2000 to XP.
XP basically really is only a prettier Win 2000.

tigger183234 said:

And that is in my experience not true for Vista. It does everything
i do at the same speed as XP.
This may vary for others, as others may use their OS in a slightly
different way and use other applications.

There are many changes under the hood that have changed since XP,
not only the interface is prettier. The whole security stuff, new
networking stack, new explorer shell, priorization of the whole IO
stuff, not only CPU, ...

Click to expand...

We shall see on this one. More code code mean more problems...

tigger183234 said:

I don't say that these are things that justify to upgrade from XP
to Vista. If XP is fine for you, than you don't need to upgrade.
People tend to think of Vista as a down your throat upgrade. Nobody
has to.

Click to expand...

If 64bit Vista was not having the program compatabilty issues it is...then it would be worth is on that alone...so many 64bit cpu's out there to take advantage of. But 32bit vista is a waste of time IMO...

tigger183234 said:

If you are talking about lean mean and fast, you should be using
Win 2000 instead of XP, anyway. Version number of 2000 is 5.0, XP
is 5.1
There are almost zero changes in the kernel from 2000 to XP.
XP basically really is only a prettier Win 2000.

Click to expand...

True to a point...but win 2000 really needs 512mb to run well...it is so so at 256mb....(same as xp) You could say memory is cheap anyway...but I would rather like to see leaner code for vista....

I can only give my opinion as a system builder...and it isnt an anti MS slant either...just many builders such as myself are closely watching..and using linux...as it is becoming a more attractive option (plus it is free)..soon it will be a viable option to a paid for OS.

System builders hate bloat...vista is full of it..dont get me wrong so of it is nice...but I can see ms getting into even more trouble with the EU competition courts...

--

tigger said:

There are many changes under the hood that have changed since XP,
not only the interface is prettier. The whole security stuff, new
networking stack, new explorer shell, priorization of the whole IO
stuff, not only CPU, ...

Click to expand...

Also, there are major stability improvements. In Vista, most drivers run at the user level. So if a third-party driver crashes, it won't bring the system down with it.

tigger183234 said:

I don't say that these are things that justify to upgrade from XP
to Vista. If XP is fine for you, than you don't need to upgrade.
People tend to think of Vista as a down your throat upgrade. Nobody
has to.

Click to expand...

Very well put. I actually reccomend to friends and family that they wait a while. It will be difficult, at first, to find good, solid, hardware drivers for Vista. The same was true for XP and Win2K. And there will be bugs. Have no doubt. Probably not as serious as some of the early XP bugs, but still.

--
Jordan

Barry Fitzgerald said:

If 64bit Vista was not having the program compatabilty issues it
is...then it would be worth is on that alone...so many 64bit cpu's
out there to take advantage of. But 32bit vista is a waste of time
IMO...

Click to expand...

Until software developers start releasing 64-bit versions of their products, you won't see any advantage to running them on 64-bit Vista, anyway. I still see 64-bit as a special purpose environment. That may change in the next few years as the market becomes more saturated and developers start taking advantage of the platform, but for now, there aren't that many applications that can really make use of the larger address space.

Member said:

I can only give my opinion as a system builder...and it isnt an
anti MS slant either...just many builders such as myself are
closely watching..and using linux...as it is becoming a more
attractive option (plus it is free)..soon it will be a viable
option to a paid for OS.

Click to expand...

I've heard that tune repeatedly for about 10 years now, and it hasn't come to pass yet. Don't get me wrong, Linux has a place. But it is still a long way from being easily installed and maintained by an average home computer user. Maybe if you have a reference box with all known and well-supported hardware. God help you if you have any special driver needs, though. I gave up on Linux after spending three weeks trying to install and configure drivers for a TV tuner card and a wireless NIC with MythTV. I lost count of how many times I re-configured and compiled the kernel, tried different distributions and versions. I was never able to find a configuration that could get both cards working at the same time. I installed XP and had it up and running in two hours. I had to pay for DVR software, but it works and it works without a bunch of tinkering. Linux won't be viable as a mainstream OS until they can get widespread support from hardware manufacturers. And they won't get that support until there's a large enough user base to justify the expense. User-supplied support just isn't good enough these days.

Member said:

System builders hate bloat...vista is full of it..dont get me wrong
so of it is nice...but I can see ms getting into even more trouble
with the EU competition courts...

Click to expand...

Perhaps. I'd comment on EC decisions, but I could easily see this turning into a political discussion, and I don't think anyone wants that I will say this: how many copies of Windows XP Edition N do you think have been purchased since its release?

--
Jordan

tigger said:

There are many changes under the hood that have changed since XP,
not only the interface is prettier. The whole security stuff, new
networking stack, new explorer shell, priorization of the whole IO
stuff, not only CPU, ...

Click to expand...

Is Vista essentially different at the kernel level, or is MS still clinging on to all that legacy code?

JSug said:

Until software developers start releasing 64-bit versions of their
products, you won't see any advantage to running them on 64-bit
Vista, anyway. I still see 64-bit as a special purpose
environment. That may change in the next few years as the market
becomes more saturated and developers start taking advantage of the
platform, but for now, there aren't that many applications that can
really make use of the larger address space.

Click to expand...

I wont disagree...though some high end commercial apps do support 64bit...my argument here is why bother with an OS change that wont really have much impact.

JSug said:

I've heard that tune repeatedly for about 10 years now, and it
hasn't come to pass yet. Don't get me wrong, Linux has a place.
But it is still a long way from being easily installed and
maintained by an average home computer user. Maybe if you have a
reference box with all known and well-supported hardware. God help
you if you have any special driver needs, though. I gave up on
Linux after spending three weeks trying to install and configure
drivers for a TV tuner card and a wireless NIC with MythTV. I
lost count of how many times I re-configured and compiled the
kernel, tried different distributions and versions. I was never
able to find a configuration that could get both cards working at
the same time. I installed XP and had it up and running in two
hours. I had to pay for DVR software, but it works and it works
without a bunch of tinkering. Linux won't be viable as a
mainstream OS until they can get widespread support from hardware
manufacturers. And they won't get that support until there's a
large enough user base to justify the expense. User-supplied
support just isn't good enough these days.

Click to expand...

In fairness to linux...it has come on a hell of a lot in the last few years. And they cant force manufacturers to support their OS. Not a problem for system drivers, graphics, chipsets etc...not at all. THe problem is printers/scanners and other peripherals....some companies do offer drivers...you have to be careful what you pick.

But dont bash it too much...it does need some ease of use work..but is perfectly good if you have the right hardware. What is stopping me now from throwing linux machines out to customers..isnt that the OS isnt good enough...it is that some hardware isnt supports out of the box, and most software is OSX or windows...I cant have people going out buying software and hardware and it not working..(or working with hassle and hunting for drivers)....but this is down to software companies and manufacturers...as marketshare increases..it will improve.

The OS itself is solid, reliable, and easy to use...it is the support for other areas that is the problem..it wont be 10 years before it is a major force though..

Oh and it costs nothing...pretty big plus in that dept...

JSug said:

Perhaps. I'd comment on EC decisions, but I could easily see this
turning into a political discussion, and I don't think anyone wants
that

Click to expand...

Well the EC court had a point....

I will say this: how many copies of Windows XP Edition N

JSug said:

do you think have been purchased since its release?

Click to expand...

That isnt the issue, they EC court clearly found that MS had unfairly hindered competition...so they fined them, and made them make the N edition..sure nobody buys it! But least they got hauled over the coal fires...

JSug said:

--
Jordan

Click to expand...

--

Barry Fitzgerald said:

But dont bash it too much...it does need some ease of use work..but
is perfectly good if you have the right hardware. What is stopping
me now from throwing linux machines out to customers..isnt that the
OS isnt good enough...it is that some hardware isnt supports out of
the box, and most software is OSX or windows...I cant have people
going out buying software and hardware and it not working..(or
working with hassle and hunting for drivers)....but this is down to
software companies and manufacturers...as marketshare increases..it
will improve.

Click to expand...

I don't bash it. It's a great platform. I just don't see marketshare increasing due to the self-defeating cycle of limited hardware and software support. It has absolutely come a long way from the first time I installed Slackware in 1995. Back then you had to custom compile a kernel just to get the OS to boot on most machines.

Member said:

The OS itself is solid, reliable, and easy to use...it is the
support for other areas that is the problem..it wont be 10 years
before it is a major force though..

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Linux is solid, reliable, and relatively secure. But it has been shown time and again that this is not enough to make it attractive for the majority of users. Without good hardware and application support, it's main usefulness is for server applications and hobbyists that are willing to look past or work around the limitations.

Member said:

Oh and it costs nothing...pretty big plus in that dept...

Click to expand...

Not entirely true. The typical user who knows nothing about how to download and burn installation CDs would have to go to the software store and buy a commercial distribution. Then there's the potential cost in time getting it up and running, and ongoing support costs. I certainly see how it could be attractive to someone who builds and sells machines for a living, though. If you already have the expertise, you can pass the savings on to your customers. But who do they contact when something stops working? Are you available 24/7 for support calls?

--
Jordan

Your hardware or your software?

An example: the Apple Cinema Displays are currently selling for three times the price of the Dell LCD of similar size.

Both use exactly the same Philips LCD panel, and give near-as-dammit identical performance.

That's a big premium for curved corners and a logo.

--
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/garyp